The way things are going at Ojai, it won't be long until they do copy a Road Hole of some kind, by enabling more room for spa or the inn, thus requiring a carry over some form of building!
Chris & Garland,
Yes, the hole maybe stooopid to you but obviously for Thomas to include it in his book, he must have been proud of the work. I'll try to post the illustration later, but almost think it would be better if some of you opened the book and found it yourselves. You might be surprised what you might pick-up. Was it a GREAT golf hole? Probably not in terms of what many of you think are GREAT golf holes, but it was certainly an interesting, quirky option that one of the least arrogant of golfing personalities would ever construct.
Cheers
I think this is exactly what George C. Thomas was thinking when he built the damn thing! It's also almost proof of him spending some time on a links course or two. It's not definitive evidence, but it's pretty close! 
Tommy,
Lo and behold I've got my copy of George Thomas' "Golf Architecture in America Its Strategy and Construction" right in front of me.
Where do I start?
To begin with, page 280 has your hole side by side with, NOT the road hole at TOC!!! (Unless Thomas forgot to put the road in the "road hole" as well as other differences I'll discuss below).
The picture caption reads, "Out of bounds makes a fine hazard occasionally, but, if possible, the out of bounds should be controlled by the club. Approximate sketches of two existing holes".
I am too stoooopid to scan and post the picture from the book so I will describe them as best as I can:
The left sketch depicts a hole at 425 yards in length (the sketch is on a grid in 20 yard increments) that has a carry over OB similar to the tee shot on 17 at TOC. However, the entire fairway is mounded on three sides so that the drive is into a bowl. Large mounding left and right runs along both sides of the fairway beginning 140 yards from the tee and running to 260 yards from the tee. There is also a "long, left" bank at 240 that helps stop balls played away from the OB on the right. I don't remember a punch bowl fairway at TOC and I don't remember how the land could have ever accomodated the bowl in the past.
The green on the sketch is guarded by a very large front left bunker. The bunker is far larger than the road bunker and the green is set at a different angle than the road hole. Right of the "sketch green" is containment mounding and rough--definitely no road in the sketch.
The greenside bunker is the only bunker on the "sketch hole" No cheapes or scholars bunkers.
Lastly, and perhaps most telling, the left sketch is being used by Thomas as an example of a hole where there is "OUT OF BOUNDS" "CONTROLLED BY CLUB" (Thomas' caps, not mine).
I never thought that the OB right on TOC was an "option"
The right hand sketch is almost exactly what you posted. It is only identified as an "existing hole" though not described on this page any further.
The right hand sketch is Thomas' example of a hole laid out when "OUT OF BOUNDS (is) NOT CONTROLLED BY CLUB". In this instance the hole is about 445 yards long. There are four fairway bunkers. One right and one left at 180 yards and one right (preventing a ball from going OB) at 290-300 yards out and a left bunker from 280-320. At its widest the fairway is 80 yards wide from 200-280 off the tee.
The narrow fairway with OB right and an area Thomas desribes as "WASH" left is 20 yards wide, bulging out to 30 yards wide just short of the green. The right side, rear and right front corner of the green are surrounded by mounds.
FUNDAMENTALLY, the hole NEVER requires any carry over the OB. Playing down the left hand side of the fairway, (the left 40 yards) one could play the hole with a putter and never have to carry either the OB or the "wash".
I think Thomas' points may have been this:
(1). When possible, when OB is not controlled by the club, don't force a player to carry it.
In another chapter "Remodeling Old Courses" Thomas has a drawing entitled "Compulsory carries changed to optional hazards" (pg. 303). From Thomas, "...the compulsory carries. The average man must play short on his second; the fine golfer has a splendid test of length but no placement. At right, the traps require placement on both drive and second with a safe line of play for all golfers...Diagram at left (the forced carry sketch) is a rough copy of principle employed on well-known courses some years ago----that at right (strategic?), more recent strategy with less hardship."
(2). In those instances where the club has no choice and OB must be carried, a generous fairway is called for. (The "bowl fairway" on the left sketch was 100 yards wide from mound to mound and the right side did offer a better angle into the green).
I promise to do whatever it takes to get the paged scanned in for everyone to see and I am sorry that the "mystery hole" did not ring a bell and I didn't look in my book earlier.
A couple of final thoughts:
I think the insinuation that as an "American" I don't appreciate quirky is a joke. I've played in 5 R & A Championships, The St. Andrews Links, as well as 100 or so rounds in the U.K. and Ireland and absolutely love and appreciate links golf and its quirks. (Give me N. berwick anytime over Muirfield--is that quirky enough for you
).
Also, I've put my money where my opinions lay and have built a golf course that while not fancy or expensive is unique to my area. I have a punchbowl, two blind shots, a redan, brown sand with fescues and sedges throughout, very undulated greens from 4000 sq. ft to 10,000 sq. ft. In short, for my area it's different and quirky.
I appreciate that all of us should try and read and research things ourselves and I am certainly glad I found where to look in this case, but I could do without the patronizing, "...if some of you opened the book and found it yourselves...You might be surprised what you might pick up." comment.
Lastly, I hope that this site will encourage independent thought. It seems that whenever someone offers up a candid or honest opinion and does their best to offer an explanation of their thoughts, there is always someone there to say, "but this is the right answer, George Thomas said so" or "it's a Ross green, it must be genius" or whatever. No doubt these and many unheralded names are great and brilliant at what they do--certainly I would have no ability to be an architect right now. But I have a good eye and certainly am "qualified" to comment on architecture! Guess what, no matter how great someone is, they aren't always "right" In fact, in many cases there is no right or wrong just differences of opinion in many cases.
The irony I suppose is that in the case you presented I am not certain George Thomas would have agreed with you.
PS I think the Doonbeg hole looks pretty cool
